sahuang wrote:

Mod as promised.

[Evolution]

1. 00:34:847 (3) - 00:35:023 (4) - 00:35:553 (7) - and 00:35:729 (8) - I think it's better for you to ctrl+G them. The current flow for 00:34:671 (2,3) - and 00:35:023 (4,5) - 00:35:376 (6,7) - is awkward...imo it follows music better if you ctrl+G those sliders as well. umm i understood your opinion but i still like current angle design. hard to explain but i feel it has such a stability. but i did a minute adjustment. i hope it's now better...
2. 00:35:200 (5) - NC this pls it maybe just messy combo in terms of appearance... i wanna keep this.
3. 01:08:376 (3,1) - 01:19:671 (3,1) - I don't think it's a good idea to stack here. Clearly there's much higher piano sound for 01:19:847 (1) - and 01:08:553 (1) - ,stack just breaks the flow. it's designed pattern. it rather emphasize the next higher sound.
4. 01:19:847 (1,2,3,1) - it's not reasonable to suddenly have such big spacing when music is still much much calmer compared to the rest of this song. fixed.
5. 01:58:494 (1,2) - spacing is too big. Actually 01:58:671 (2,3) - is 1/2 and 01:58:494 (1,2) - is 1/4 but you use an even bigger distance,which is really misleading.
   01:58:847 (3,4,1) - this is a much better spacing to play compared to 01:58:494 (1,2,3) - btw. is it really? the same rhythm pattern (01:55:671 (1,2,3,4) - ) is used before. I think it's still easy to understand.
6. 02:03:435 - to 02:03:965 - mind explaining a bit why use those green line sv? You go from 0.9x to 1.0x then drop to 0.3x...it's really weird cuz music is actually more intense here. Also if sv changes are so noticable (0.3x to 1.0x range) then you should probably NC. fixed.
7. 02:04:141 (1,2) - can use lower sv such as 2.5x and 3.5x. 4.15x is just tooo high to let players do the multiple reverse slider properly imo. after getting some testplays, i didn't have found a combobreaker here... also i wanna keep this circle appearance.
8. 02:15:082 (2,3) - avoid overlap,maybe put 02:15:788 (3) - downwards a bit, around 300|373 should work. changed.
9. 02:24:788 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,1) - very interesting to play, nice!! thanks
10. 02:33:613 (3,1) - 02:44:906 (3,1) - They seem to be inconsistent..you didn't map 02:33:700 - before but mapped it afterwards. yep it's no consistency but there is a strong sound... i've realized it's easy way to understand that stack them (02:33:613 (3,1) - ) as they have different rhythm.
11. 02:50:612 (3,1) - distance is too big, it's 170bpm and 1/3 here..i think you should reduce distance a bit, compared to 02:50:847 (2,3,1) - etc. it's a bit overdone. it's the peak of the kiai and there is spaced streams(?) before. i don't think it's overdone.
12. 02:51:171 - why 1.3x here? it's meaningless to change ds when 02:51:082 (1,1,1) - are all 1.4x..and also no need to spam NCs on 02:51:171 (1,1,1) - . fixed. but i would keep NCs because it's suddenly 1/4 imo.
13. 03:14:730 (5,6,7,8) - messy here due to overlaps,think you should move 03:15:082 (7,8) - elsewhere like 03:03:611 (6,7,8) - well it's ok i wanna keep the consistency of spacing (03:14:906 (6,7) - and 03:03:611 (6,7) - )
14. 03:56:376 (1,8) - this part you are reducing SV, but similarly 02:03:435 - to 02:03:965 - you use different sv settings. I strongly recommend you use same sv as the music is exactly the same. changed.
15. 03:57:082 (1,2) - same as above
16. 04:39:788 - stick to 2.0x pls, no need to use 2.05x here. fixed.
17. 00:28:839 - unsnapped green line. Should be 00:28:847 - fixed.

Very interesting map to play, poke me when done~

theReaL_Gatorix wrote:

This is a great map and all, and I love the aesthetics about it... but honestly is this even remotely FCable?

awesomemacD wrote:

Too much offset? Notes appearing really late.

theReaL_Gatorix wrote:

This is a great map and all, and I love the aesthetics about it... but honestly is this even remotely FCable?

sahuang wrote:

Modded in IRC.

rrtyui wrote:

1. changed 02:04:141 (1) - a bit.
2. changed 02:51:082 (1,2,3,4,1) - .
3. added flash kiais at 03:59:200, 04:10:494, 04:21:788, 04:33:082.
4. changed ar9.6 to ar9.7.

Spaghetti wrote:

00:25:141 (4) - ctrl g for better flow? i have considered this pattern but this moving maybe cause of such a combobreaker. it's abrupt.
01:27:788 (2) - ^ imo the now pattern is more playable because the aim moving is stacked with the sliderfollowcircle.
01:29:200 (3) - ^hmm... but i wanna keep the same spacing of the hitpoints.
01:54:788 (2) - ^ (for the repeating pitch?) i wanna keep this consistency. i like this.

ctrl g mod lel

02:11:200 (1) - ctrl h and move to around X: 197 Y: 81? This pattern is already kinda fucked and this would make it much more playable uh the linear style is the concept of this part...
02:22:494 (1) - same concept here
03:47:553 (3) - ctrl gggggg ater some testplayings, i thought it maybe much compressed in the side place.
04:03:435 (1,2,3) - i get gimmicks but pls space out more itd play much better changed a bit.
04:42:788 (4) - offscreen according to MA, id move cuz its rlly close anyways i got ranked like this placement in this map of 01:21:401. it's much spicy.

call me back w

rrtyui wrote:

Thanks for all modders, players, lovers and blamers. <3

Chaoslitz wrote:

The updated BNG rules implied that a nominator cannot nominate maps that they can not judge properly.

really? I don't think this rule is being followed.

Shiirn wrote:

this aside, 24 hours between icons i thought?

Chaoslitz wrote:

The updated BNG rules implied that a nominator cannot nominate maps that they can not judge properly.

really? I don't think this rule is being followed.

Shiirn wrote:

this aside, 24 hours between icons i thought?


also i dont believe in sahuang's ability to judge this map, monstrata i totally accept as a fine judge, spaghetti somewhere in the middle. This is a bit of a fucknut crazy map, it should be judged by more experienced/knowledgeable BNs.